WaPo Reporter to Hillary: Yes, It Makes a Difference

No matter your view of the media’s role in Benghazi; no matter your take on whether U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice leveled with the country on the Sept. 16 talk shows; no matter your view of Fox News’s Benghazi campaign, it surely does make a difference whether it was “because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans.” It makes a difference to the media, the public, the government, everyone.

The trustworthiness of the administration’s version of events — even the early one — makes a difference. Whether it was hard-core terrorism or a spontaneous attack or something else — that makes a difference too, with strong implications for intelligence accountability. Goodness gracious, in her very own statement, Clinton herself even seems to acknowledge that it makes a difference, when she says, “It is our job to figure out what happened …”

At one point in the proceedings, Clinton stated, “Maybe we didn’t do a good enough job of explaining that we didn’t have a good picture.” Yes, that would have helped.

Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen across the media landscape, this is minority opinion. Thus far, a sitting secretary of state asking “what’s the difference?” about a White House cover-up has either been ignored, downplayed, and even celebrated by much of the media.

Yeah, HAMMERS, because she’s so awesome and getting to the truth is wingnuttery.

Stupid George W. Bush. He should’ve just said, “What difference does it make? New Orleans is underwater.” and the media would’ve laid off. Right?

Right?

What’s frightening is not that a politician like Hillary Clinton would use ginned up indignation to deflect from a White House cover up. What’s frightening is that much of the media is okay with that response or championing it as a “takedown.”